As this film demonstrates, managing director Rouben Mamoulian (Applause (1929)) and cinematographer Karl Struss (Sunrise (1927)) were two of the great innovators in renewing the role of the photographic camera for the talkies. Lesser talents began the talkies much the same as silent films began: with a static camera. The sound is still creaky, equally usual, with awkward silences, but it's non bothersome. The editing isn't always seamless here, either, and, at times, makes the moving picture seem unpolished, but that, too, is minor. This is the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson'south novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", in my opinion, and that has very little to exercise with the bodily story accommodation, which comes more from the stage, anyhow. It's the role of the camera that'southward remarkable.
I don't mean to say that this adaptation is of niggling involvement; it'south especially interesting when compared to the novella and its other adaptations. The 1920-John Barrymore version features a more grotesque Hyde and a stiffer Jekyll. Here, Jekyll is, at first, full of gaiety and youthful exuberance. That's more faithful to the novel, but also reflects the filmmakers' intentions and the changes in Hollywood. The 1920 film was bolder in content in some respects; it was a mood slice of horror and atmosphere. The fogy lamp-lit slums of London are nevertheless realized vividly in this one, only much of the feeling in them is lost. On the other hand, the mirror motif comes out more than hither, which corresponds nicely with the doppelgänger (or doubles) theme inherent in the story. This 1931 flick is of the classic Hollywood era. The added emphasis on the romance between Jekyll and Muriel is a outcome. This version is almost more than the story, though; the major focus is in the camera-piece of work.
The film begins with almost three and one-half minutes of long point-of-view takes, with a mobile camera, from the perspective of Dr. Jekyll. It establishes the camera equally an active participant in the film, rather than merely a static recorder. Throughout the picture, the camera continually moves--from slight zooms, dollies, pans and tilts to trip the light fantastic-like tracking shots during the party sequence. Additionally, some extreme close-ups show merely a character'southward eyes. A POV shot during Jekyll'southward kickoff transition into Hyde turns into spinning memories, which is in addition to the special furnishings that permit for transformations that are seen with fluent, unbroken rhythm from the camera'due south middle.
The camera positioning is varied, as well, and some shots are extraordinary just in their positions. The photography exploits the sets to greater outcome occasionally, and the filmmakers position props with the camera especially well and in rather thematic ways that apply to the story. Even so, the photography is nigh brilliant when not subject to much scene dissection: long takes that are unbroken and add more than fluency to the already tight plot.
1 could say this is showy flick-making; fifty-fifty the transitional effects seem to draw attention to themselves: lengthy dissolves that linger as superimposed images (such as the prototype of Ivy's legs over the image of Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon'south fence) and wipes that create brief split-screen shots. But, the photographic camera is the most essential part of moving picture-making (along with editing), and information technology seems negligent to subject area information technology to a role of impotence--to merely recording an enacted play. This 1931 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a cinematic artwork and shows what moving picture should be concerning the role of its well-nigh basic apparatus.
0 Response to "Dr Jekyll Und Mr Hyde 1931"
Post a Comment